'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/18 20:53, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> How can you verify it's the same stream?
>
> I can't. I've deleted it.
>
> This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a
> road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such.
> Under a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?

This one is some 470 meters long. It goes under shopping and residential
areas, some roads and a train line, when (not if) it gets blocked it
floods the area.
Way: Terrys Creek (447098073)
Fortunately OSM has access to data of where it goes, in the past I would
think a straight line would have been used between the entry and exit
points.
The culvert is large ... say 3 meters height and 4 meters wide.

>
> What is a stream? Even if it's the same water, does that make it the
> same stream? Is a pipe a stream?

This one is a stream. It is well known in the area and thus easy to
verify from local knowledge, topology and the lack of any matching
features in the area.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

>>> The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they
>>> can't be verified on the ground.
>>
>> No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.
>>
>
> Make up your minds!
>
> Previously:
>
> > > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which
> > > is "current or real".
>
> > Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> > ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> > about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be
> > solved immediately.
>
> Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/18 22:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
>>> The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they
>>> can't be verified on the ground.
>>
>> No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.
>>
>
> Make up your minds!
:-)

There is more than one mind to be 'made up'.

On some issues there may be many different ways of doing things, and
each person/mind might just decide such that all those different ways of
doing things are valid for them.

Many boundaries cannot be verified 'on the ground' .. some of them are
on water ;-).

I have one near me that has various wooden signs .. they may be
separated by a few miles. Some sit inside the real boundary by some 10
yards. Some sit on the boundary. They don't occur at every place where
the boundary changes direction .. but only where a track or path crosses
the boundary. It was mapped as well as it could be prior to obtaining
permission to use the official data. Before the official data .. you
could not be precise as to where the boundary was, so verifying it was a
mater of how much you cared and how far you wanted to push your limits.
Most mappers simply left it alone, a few altered it where they had some
local knowledge, but these were very small movements.

Many things don't render on maps ... historic county boundaries may be
one of them.
If they don't render most people won't be worried by them.
Those that care for them will check them.
Those that think they should not be in OSM will try to remove them.
Provided they are documented on the wiki I'd leave them in.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
current."

Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".

What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the
timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?

What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I
have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public
footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it
after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14
days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It still is one today.

So there's no problem, then.

> So:
>
> Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
> geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
> up with a solution that will retain that information.

For the nth time - OHM.

> if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
> deleting.
These two are not mutually exclusive. When a building is razed &
replaced with a new one do you retain the existing?

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

I’m all for debate and coming to a consensus, but my message counter has got to 108 mails in this thread, and I have to say that from where I am sitting it’s all becoming rather tedious. The same arguments (albeit polite) are being rehashed, nothing new is being said, and no-one is showing any sign of changing their mind. We don’t have a consensus, and in any case there are only around 25 people contributing, out of however many UK mappers, which is hardly representative.

I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept, whether it matches our personal views or not.

If we don’t, this thread will just rumble on forever and, at worst, we will get into a tit-for-tat set of edits and reversions/deletions, which no-one wants.

Regards,
Stuart

> On 20 Sep 2018, at 14:37, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> It still is one today.
>
> So there's no problem, then.
>
>> So:
>>
>> Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
>> geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
>> up with a solution that will retain that information.
>
> For the nth time - OHM.
>
>> if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
>> deleting.
> These two are not mutually exclusive. When a building is razed & replaced with a new one do you retain the existing?
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
>> See the OSM Welcome page.
>
> Thanks. The wording there is:
>
> "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
> current."
>
> Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".

No, it leaves those to the ordinary, everyday meanings of the words.

> What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
> shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the
> timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?
>
> What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I
> have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public
> footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it
> after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14
> days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?

There are, obviously, edge cases where a decision has to be made on the
particular circumstances. Trying to define things too tightly creates
unwanted inconsistencies.

However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
realms of what is current.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

>
>
>
> On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
> >> See the OSM Welcome page.
> >
> > Thanks. The wording there is:
> >
> > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
> > current."
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".
>
> No, it leaves those to the ordinary, everyday meanings of the words.
>
> > What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
> > shelter? Or is it a bus stop if it's just a place listed in the
> > timetable? Or even just a place where buses often stop on request?
> >
> > What is a "current" footpath? If I mapped it 5 years ago, how often do I
> > have to go back and check that it is still there? If it's a public
> > footpath crossing a field the farmer is allowed 14 days to re-instate it
> > after ploughing the field. Is it still a "real" footpath for those 14
> > days? What if I re-visit it on the wrong day?
>
> There are, obviously, edge cases where a decision has to be made on the
> particular circumstances. Trying to define things too tightly creates
> unwanted inconsistencies.
>
> However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
> current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
> realms of what is current.

Your "by definition" seems to be about "historical", not "historic" (a
distinction which already came up somewhere else in this thread).
Historical things are in the past; historic things were important in
the past, and might or might not still exist. I'm sure that seems
pedantic and I'm sorry, but it seems almost to be the crux of the
matter.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

>> However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
>> current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
>> realms of what is current.
>
> Your "by definition" seems to be about "historical", not "historic" (a
> distinction which already came up somewhere else in this thread).
> Historical things are in the past; historic things were important in
> the past, and might or might not still exist. I'm sure that seems
> pedantic and I'm sorry, but it seems almost to be the crux of the
> matter.

Administrative boundaries cease to be current when they are changed or
deleted by whichever organisation has the authority to change them.

The debate around the historic counties is not about whether or not
their boundaries are still current. They are not. That is indisputable.
The debate is about whether they are still *important*, to the extent
that justifies mapping them in OSM even though they have no current
legal or administrative significance.

Now, I do agree that the mid Victorian county boundaries (which are the
ones generally accepted as the boundaries of the historic counties,
although there are other definitions) are important for a number of
things. They matter for a lot of historical research, particularly
genealogy and architecture. So having them readily available in data,
and viewable on a map, is valuable.

However, that function is precisely what OHM is designed for. It isn't
what OSM is designed for. So the historic county boundaries more
correctly belong in OHM rather than OSM.

In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging
to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped
areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs is
a group of enthusiastic contributors, who are knowledgeable about
history and want to see it mapped. Putting the historic counties into
OHM would be a huge boost for it, it would make OHM much more useful for
genealogists, fans of listed buildings, ancient monuments, old railways,
etc. And there are plenty of those. That in turn would drive more users
of OHM, and more contributors, thus helping to make it even more useful.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
> In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging
> to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped
> areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs is
> a group of enthusiastic contributors, who are knowledgeable about
> history and want to see it mapped. Putting the historic counties into
> OHM would be a huge boost for it, it would make OHM much more useful for
> genealogists, fans of listed buildings, ancient monuments, old railways,
> etc. And there are plenty of those. That in turn would drive more users
> of OHM, and more contributors, thus helping to make it even more useful.

Until OHM has all of the current history available in parallel with
'extra' data it's not worth spending any time on. I want to see where
historic changes fit around the current state on the ground so I work
off OSM ... and will until all that data is available in OHM ...

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still consider themselves as living in (for eg.) Wigan, Lancashire or Dentdale, Yorkshire (administratively in the Yorkshire Dales but not Yorkshire - how ridiculous!).

To me the best comparison is with loc_name and old_name, tags in which we appreciate the significance of older or alternate names for areas where they retain some current significance.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask
> them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a
> firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then
> they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept,
> whether it matches our personal views or not.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

> On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging
>> to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped
>> areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs
>> is a group of enthusiastic contributors, who are knowledgeable about
>> history and want to see it mapped. Putting the historic counties into
>> OHM would be a huge boost for it, it would make OHM much more useful
>> for genealogists, fans of listed buildings, ancient monuments, old
>> railways, etc. And there are plenty of those. That in turn would drive
>> more users of OHM, and more contributors, thus helping to make it even
>> more useful.
>
> Until OHM has all of the current history available in parallel with
> 'extra' data it's not worth spending any time on. I want to see where
> historic changes fit around the current state on the ground so I work
> off OSM ... and will until all that data is available in OHM ...

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 19:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Then get involved and put it in OHM.
I was involved, but the current OHM development is not going in a way
that works well with OSM so I gave up. I'd rather mirror OSM directly
and add my historic material to that local copy! Which is what I'm doing
currently ...

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 18:37, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that
> you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion
> in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural
> geographic relevance.

No, they don't. They have relevance to the past.

> People with no particularinterest in history can and do still consider
> themselves as living in (for eg.) Wigan, Lancashire or Dentdale,
> Yorkshire (administratively in the Yorkshire Dales but not Yorkshire -
> how ridiculous!).

Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM &
nothing to do with this specific subject.

>
> To me the best comparison is with loc_name and old_name, tags in which
> we appreciate the significance of older or alternate names for areas
> where they retain some current significance.

You disproved your own argument - old_name is used on current, still
existing entities.

Re: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

> Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM &
> nothing to do with this specific subject.

OSM mappers spend many hours of their free time adding stuff to OSM
because it interests them and in the hope that others may find it
useful. Simply because they enjoy doing it as a hobby interest, for no
reward.

If you are going to get so stroppy about everything, they may just find
that they have something better to do on a saturday afternoon.

OSM needs its mappers and is not going to be helped by driving them away
with a lot of fusspot rules and regulations, which no-one can agree on
anyway.